Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
How long is long enough ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fiftybmg" data-source="post: 1842459" data-attributes="member: 96316"><p>I follow with ambivalence the striving for longer bullets in tighter twist barrels, and notice the fad gets forgotten then resurrected periodically.</p><p></p><p>I do understand that longer bullets have higher sectional density. Other than that, what else do they have ? Bragging rights ? My twist is tighter than yours ?</p><p></p><p>You have a 6.5 caliber, and you fancy sending 180 grainers downrange. Or, you really need to go up to 250 grains in your .30 cal. No problem, new barrel, tighter twist.</p><p></p><p>No shortage of rifle builders to make that up for you, but why ?</p><p></p><p>If you're hung up on the bullet weight, why not just go one or two calibers larger ? Instead of 250 grains in 30-whatever, why not 245 grains in .375 ? </p><p></p><p>Yes, the BC. So the BC of the smaller caliber may be higher. Maybe. The velocity gain most likely cancels the BC loss. </p><p></p><p>Recoil ? You want less recoil ? Big bullets without recoil - a fascinating theoretical concept.</p><p></p><p>Accuracy ? Accuracy is a platform, not a bullet.</p><p></p><p>There are many advantages to running a rifle on the light side of the ballistics, and none to pushing the max - other than it being an itch to scratch, which seems to resurface as if it's something new again after skipping a generation.</p><p></p><p>The first, or one of the first - long-for-caliber bullets was chambered in the 6.5x55, in the 1890's . Slightly taller brother to the 6.5 Creedmoor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fiftybmg, post: 1842459, member: 96316"] I follow with ambivalence the striving for longer bullets in tighter twist barrels, and notice the fad gets forgotten then resurrected periodically. I do understand that longer bullets have higher sectional density. Other than that, what else do they have ? Bragging rights ? My twist is tighter than yours ? You have a 6.5 caliber, and you fancy sending 180 grainers downrange. Or, you really need to go up to 250 grains in your .30 cal. No problem, new barrel, tighter twist. No shortage of rifle builders to make that up for you, but why ? If you're hung up on the bullet weight, why not just go one or two calibers larger ? Instead of 250 grains in 30-whatever, why not 245 grains in .375 ? Yes, the BC. So the BC of the smaller caliber may be higher. Maybe. The velocity gain most likely cancels the BC loss. Recoil ? You want less recoil ? Big bullets without recoil - a fascinating theoretical concept. Accuracy ? Accuracy is a platform, not a bullet. There are many advantages to running a rifle on the light side of the ballistics, and none to pushing the max - other than it being an itch to scratch, which seems to resurface as if it's something new again after skipping a generation. The first, or one of the first - long-for-caliber bullets was chambered in the 6.5x55, in the 1890's . Slightly taller brother to the 6.5 Creedmoor. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
How long is long enough ?
Top